Major decline in believers in US

robindch

According to the third run of a well-conducted survey of over 50,000 people, the number of religious believers in the US has declined sharply in the last twenty years, with the decline matched by a corresponding rise in the number of people who self-identify as having no religion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801967.html

The survey also suggests that there's deep confusion amongst religious believers about who they really are, with almost one in five catholics self-describing as "born again/evangelical" as did two in five of non-catholics.

Meanwhile, Vermont, the state with the highest number of irreligious people (34%) has the third-lowest overall serious crime rate, while Texas, with it's 91% christian population, has the second-highest serious crime rate. Crime stats here.

The full report is available here.

AtomicHorror

Yes, spotted this myself when Pharyngula blogged about it...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/we_are_growing.php

studiorat

91% Christian in Texas? That's just bonkers!

Strange too that they've executed 10 people already this year in Texas. Care to guess how many in Vermont?

Zillah

studiorat wrote: »

91% Christian in Texas? That's just bonkers!

I'm shocked that 9% of Texans would admit to being atheists. (I somehow doubt there are many Jews, Muslims or Hindus either...)

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

I'm shocked that 9% of Texans would admit to being atheists. ([/SIZE]

Well, being of no religion doesn't make you an atheist. I'd imagine the percentage of 'out' atheists there is closer to 1%

sink

Speaking of atheists in Texas, there is a show broadcast on public access television by the Atheist Community of Austin called the Atheist Experience. They put the shows up on google video. I've watched a few and they can be quiet good.

http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

while Texas, with it's 91% christian population, has the second-highest serious crime rate. Crime stats here.

The full report is available here.

Obviously they are not proper christians, or the 9% are very very busy.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

According to the third run of a well-conducted survey of over 50,000 people, the number of religious believers in the US has declined sharply in the last twenty years, with the decline matched by a corresponding rise in the number of people who self-identify as having no religion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801967.html

The survey also suggests that there's deep confusion amongst religious believers about who they really are, with almost one in five catholics self-describing as "born again/evangelical" as did two in five of non-catholics.

Meanwhile, Vermont, the state with the highest number of irreligious people (34%) has the third-lowest overall serious crime rate, while Texas, with it's 91% christian population, has the second-highest serious crime rate. Crime stats here.

The full report is available here.

I'm sorry, but to suggest there is a correlation between religiosity and the crime rates in two States at either end of America is preposterous. You are dealing with two bodies that are not equal. On has population of 600,000 and boarders Canada, the other has a population of 24,000,000 and boarders Mexico. Chalk and cheese.

Interestingly, the State occupying the top spot was California, which is less religious than the American average. It also boarders Mexico, a significantly poorer country.

I remember you trying something similar a long time back, Robin. While my memory might be fuzzy on the matter, I seem to recall you arguing there was significance to the crime rates (civil and penal) reported in the Vatican apparently being considerably higher that the Italian average when viewed on a per capita basis. Of course, you decided not to include the possibility that the tiny population weren't the ones statistically like to engage in these crimes, rather it was the masses (no pun intended) of tourists and the criminals that follow them that were skewing the stats. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

5uspect

Of course! Mexico is more religious than Canada:

Fanny Cradock

Ha!

You got the hang of it now!

studiorat

Religious = Poor ?

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Well, being of no religion doesn't make you an atheist. I'd imagine the percentage of 'out' atheists there is closer to 1%

According to Wicknight, being an atheist simply means disagreeing with my beliefs. I suspect that number of Texans who disagree with my beliefs would be closer to 90% than to 1%.

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

Religious = Poor ?

I don't believe I said that.

studiorat

I never said you did. However you can't compare Canada and Mexico without considering it. With the exception of the middle east it would be hard to disagree with the chart.

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe I said that.

I think he was referring to the map posted by 5uspect

Fanny Cradock

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think he was referring to the map posted by 5uspect

Ah! That's the second time I've done the same in a day.

Anyway, I find it interesting (or odd) that India only appears as 'average' on the map and is therefore comparable to places like Italy and Portugal.

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah! That's the second time I've done the same in a day.

Anyway, I find it interesting (or odd) that India only appears as 'average' on the map and is therefore comparable to places like Italy and Portugal.

good point,i would have expected india to be way up there.

studiorat

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah! That's the second time I've done the same in a day.

Anyway, I find it interesting (or odd) that India only appears as 'average' on the map and is therefore comparable to places like Italy and Portugal.

Or Poland or Iraq. (is that Iraq?) In fairness lads, India is a complete continent and one of the biggest countries in the world. I'd be more than skeptical about that poll really.

stevejazzx

robin wrote:

Major decline in believers in US[/URL]

I love your use of the word 'believers' here...it's so undermining. Fantastic!

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

Or Poland or Iraq. (is that Iraq?) In fairness lads, India is a complete continent and one of the biggest countries in the world. I'd be more than skeptical about that poll really.

It's actually part of the continent of Asia, and not a continent in itself.

On a personal level I've certainly never experienced anywhere quite as fervently interested in the divine as India, and that Peter Owen Jones chap from Around The World in 80 Faiths seemed quite overwhelmed by his sojourn despite his range of religious experiences from, eh, around the world. Maybe Gallup made a distinction between spiritualism and religion?

Sorry for derailing this one.

studiorat

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe Gallup made a distinction between spiritualism and religion?

Personally I don't see difference. The survey says it's about the importance of religion. India's a secular state, biggest democratic republic in the world. I guess it's not all that odd when you consider that.

Sub-Continent!

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

Personally I don't see difference. The survey says it's about the importance of religion. India's a secular state, biggest democratic republic in the world. I guess it's not all that odd when you consider that.

Neither do I My suggestion was simply a way to explain away my own experiences.

I fail to see what India's status as a secular State or the most populated democracy on the planet has upon its religious prevalence. Maybe better discussed in another thread?

studiorat wrote: »

Sub-Continent!

Humm... even if we ignore your original statement, the Indian subcontinent encompasses more than just India. Still, not very important. I just wanted to get one up on you :pac:

OK, I'm out. I feel dirty after posting here

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, I'm out. I feel dirty after posting here

Feels good, duznit'? :cool:

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm sorry, but to suggest there is a correlation between religiosity and the crime rates in two States at either end of America is preposterous.

Preposterous it might look at first glance, but entirely in line with the regularly-quoted Paul Gregory study on religiosity and social dysfunction, it most certainly is.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I remember you trying something similar a long time back, Robin. While my memory might be fuzzy on the matter, I seem to recall you arguing there was significance to the crime rates (civil and penal) reported in the Vatican apparently being considerably higher that the Italian average when viewed on a per capita basis. Of course, you decided not to include the possibility that the tiny population weren't the ones statistically like to engage in these crimes, rather it was the masses (no pun intended) of tourists and the criminals that follow them that were skewing the stats. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

And to fuzzy memories, lies, damned and otherwise, one must suggest -- dare I say it? -- the very mildest of biases too. That post was one of this especially silly thread, and the post which mentioned the very high crime stats links to an article from the splendid Catholic News Service which explains exactly why the stats were so high. No deception at all, I'm afraid.

Anyhow, I'd imagine the Vatican makes more money from Peter's Pence and its other annual income, than it could ever do by doing something as drastic as having all 500 or so of its inhabitants lifting the wallets of the faithful in an interesting variation on the theme of white-collar crime.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry for derailing this one.

Derailing is fine, as long as the derailed train of the thread's thought is bumping along the ground in some interesting direction

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

I love your use of the word 'believers' here

I think you're just trying to get me into trouble

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Preposterous it might look at first glance, but entirely in line with the regularly-quoted Paul Gregory study on religiosity and social dysfunction, it most certainly is.

I'm just looking at Paul's bio on Wiki, and while it seems that he is a respected 'freelance palaeontologist, author and illustrator', he doesn't appear to hold any qualifications in sociology or statistical analysis. So his step from palaeontology and into the world of religious analysis is hardly without controversy.

For instance, [URL="http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3094]article"]this[/URL] article from George Gallup Jr. of Gallup Poll fame might provide something of a counterbalance to Paul's conclusions, as might this paper dealing with religion and homicide rates or even this critique from a statistics website. Indeed, the Journal of Religion and Society - the very same journal that first published Paul's paper - later printed a paper refuting his findings. Part of this paper's conclusion reads:

What one can state with certainty is that one cannot in any way be certain as to the effects of religiosity and secularism upon prosperous democracies at least as based upon the methods and data of Paul’s study.

robindch wrote: »

And to fuzzy memories, lies, damned and otherwise, one must suggest -- dare I say it? -- the very mildest of biases too. That post was one of this especially silly thread, and the post which mentioned the very high crime stats links to an article from the splendid Catholic News Service which explains exactly why the stats were so high. No deception at all, I'm afraid.

Now I don't believe I accused you of deception. However, I did note that you rather left the headline of the piece hanging in the air without any of the context. The reason I object to this is because some people much prefer headlines and have no wish to be bothered with what lies behind them. This is why tabloids do a roaring trade.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

According to Wicknight, being an atheist simply means disagreeing with my beliefs. I suspect that number of Texans who disagree with my beliefs would be closer to 90% than to 1%.

I'm just surprised they didn't mention you personally in the Poll!

Number of people who are Christian: 91%
Number of people who disagree with PDN: 90%
Number of people who disagree with everyone: 9%

Bottle_of_Smoke

5uspect wrote: »

Of course! Mexico is more religious than Canada:

Erm I'm taking it Libya is not surveyed rather than least religious? shouldn't have used white!

Dave!

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Erm I'm taking it Libya is not surveyed rather than least religious? shouldn't have used white!

The key says white = not surveyed China and Somalia are white also, for obvious reasons!

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

I think you're just trying to get me into trouble

Just breaking in that mod stick! give me a bit more time I can do better!:)

on topic however..it's fascinating that such a reasonable idea like heavy handed repressiveness leading to increased crime seems to shock the religous so much. and certainly Texas seems to be one such place. Wasn't there a top gear epsiode where they worte non pc, anti religous slogans on their cars and upon arriving in some deeply southern town in the us were immediately threatened with violence? the extent to which it was played up for TV is unknown but I think it demonstartes the overall point; in some of these places you're putting yourself in real danger just by expressing views which are not of the norm - and most of the violence threatened to you is done so in name of religon.

5uspect

stevejazzx wrote: »

Just breaking in that mod stick! give me a bit more time I can do better!:)

on topic however..it's fascinating that such a reasonable idea like heavy handed repressiveness leading to increased crime seems to shock the religous so much. and certainly Texas seems to be one such place. Wasn't there a top gear epsiode where they worte non pc, anti religous slogans on their cars and upon arriving in some deeply southern town in the us were immediately threatened with violence? the extent to which it was played up for TV is unknown but I think it demonstartes the overall point; in some of these places you're putting yourself in real danger just by expressing views which are not of the norm - and most of the violence threatened to you is done so in name of religon.

It was Alabama:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2syY12OPkwI